But for life in general, thinking is a trap. Your brain has already done all the important processing for you, because that's what it does. Do what your gut tells you, but pay attention to what happens because that's the only way your brain can improve it's process.
Why there are no children and we should think less
31–37 of 37 posts
Re: Why there are no children and we should think less
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well obviously there was the observation that children tend to operate more in a "think less" mode. They learn by trial and error: do something, evaluate consequences, do or don't do again. That's fine when you are learning things like fine control of your motor skills, or how to speak the language your parents are using. Even as adults, some things are only really learned by doing: developing skill at playing a spor…
Sometimes they operate like so: do something, evaluate consequences, realize it's not to their liking, and pitch a huge hissy fit. Preferably in public, in front of lots of people. Bonus points for attempting to smash the object of their frustration. They are definitely different from most adults who have their shit together.
My little ones have tantrums. Considering how many things they cannot do or control, I empathize with them.
Tantrums only become a means of control when combined with weak and inconsistent parenting.
Re: Why there are no children and we should think less
#33I was surprised to read this in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child#As_a_non-adult - "Recognition of childhood as a state different from adulthood began to emerge in the 16th and 17th centuries. Society began to relate to the child not as a miniature adult but as a person of a lower level of maturity needing adult protection, love and nurturing. This change can be traced in painting: In the Middle Ages, chi…
It seems that the thesis that Stone abandoned (according to your third link) was about love in marriage, not about the increasing awareness of children's nature. He may have had multiple theses, not all of which he abandoned. The idea that Western societies' perception of children went from "miniature adult" to "distinct category of human" in the 16th and 17th century is not an unusual theory among Renaissance schola…
I would say that as civilization has deviated farther and farther from the "default" of human civilizations, we come out of the womb increasingly less adjusted to it and therefore we have created a distinct phase of "maladjusted human" in our discourse to reflect it. And it is a real phase, which we must really be educated out of, or the result is a slide back to the default human state, which you may also know from the word "barbarism".
As I rather like "civilization", however artificial it may be, I'm OK with the "invented" child phase, and actually not terribly impressed with the original essay as it is written. Extol the virtues of having an open mind, sure, but children don't just have open minds, they are frankly stupidly open minds, and a variety of other difficulties like a near complete inability to rationally account for future consequences, even ones clearly mere seconds away (at the younger end). I don't believe the author can accurately describe his behavior as "childlike", because if he really was acting like a child, he would not be able to claim it was successful. I know 25-yo man children. Heck, I know a mid-40s man child. We're counting down the months until he gets arrested for some form of tax evasion, on the grounds of not really feeling like doing them. This is not a successful lifestyle. There's a lot more to "childlike" than having an open mind and a certain blind, stupid perseverance (that, might I add, only really works out if the adults in the life have created the proper environment).
Re: Why there are no children and we should think less
#34--------
"Discovery is the privilege of the child: the child who has no fear of being once again wrong, of looking like an idiot, of not being serious, of not doing things like everyone else."
This quote, from a great mathematician who made large strides in his field [Alexander Grothendieck], was brought to me by the man who serves as a kind of mathematical mentor to me. Let's take a look at it. It's true that if one is fearful of being wrong, of looking like an idiot, etc., then one will spend mental energy on worrying about avoiding these things (and possibly change one's behavior too), and this obviously interferes with thinking about and working to understand the problem at hand. Conversely, to the extent that one is free of such fears, one's mind is free to make discoveries.
Now, not all children are fearless, and not all adults are deeply concerned with how others see them. But there's a correlation, and it's easy to see why: Children are born curious, and they're not born afraid of... losing others' respect. That's something you have to learn to be afraid of. Furthermore, to the extent that an adult is absorbed in his topic of study, is excited about the things he's doing, and is unconscious of whether he looks silly or makes embarrassing mistakes in front of others, we might say that he seems childlike.
There are other things that can interfere with discovery. If a child has unreliable access to food, shelter, clothes, etc., he will have to divert his energies away from learning about whatever he was learning about, and toward addressing those needs. We can say in general that if a child's access to any particular thing that he wants or needs is uncertain, then he will worry about it, and this will distract him from discovery. It's clear that this is true just by the phrasing. (In this case, I'd distinguish a "want" from a "need" like this: if he doesn't get it for a while, and he stops worrying about it, then it's a want; if he doesn't stop worrying about it, then it's a need.) And again, conversely, if we want to help the child grow and learn and become strong, then the way to do this is to provide solidly for the child's needs so he isn't distracted and can focus on growing.
And here we see another reason the quote talks about children: adults, usually parents and relatives, provide food and shelter and do laundry and so forth for kids, while they usually don't do that for adults. But adults aren't necessarily doomed. An adult might have a steady income and a routine for dealing with all the basic needs, and this might leave him with time to forget all his worries and focus and learn like a child. This seems like a good thing to aim for, as a prospective adult. I'd hate to stop growing, or at least to be slowed down a lot, just because I've become an adult.
All this is generally applicable to one's life. But there's one need in particular that I'd like to address.
Love. I think children, and adults too, have a strong need to feel loved; what it means to be loved is probably somewhat different for every person, but some common things include tending to one's other needs, giving physical affection, displaying trust in various ways (such as accepting physical affection, sharing secrets, and accepting one's help in performing an important task), and promising to do these things (of course, the promise must be believed, which means it must be kept). We can apply what I said earlier: If one's access to love is uncertain, then one will worry about it, and it will interfere with growing. Conversely, if we wish to help someone grow, then giving them unconditional love is a powerful way to do it.
I think I can offer you my unconditional love[....]
Re: Why there are no children and we should think less
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sometimes they operate like so: do something, evaluate consequences, realize it's not to their liking, and pitch a huge hissy fit. Preferably in public, in front of lots of people. Bonus points for attempting to smash the object of their frustration. They are definitely different from most adults who have their shit together.
Just because children haven't yet learnt to control their rampant emotions doesn't mean that they deserve your insults. My little ones have tantrums. Considering how many things they cannot do or control, I empathize with them. Tantrums only become a means of control when combined with weak and inconsistent parenting.
Re: Why there are no children and we should think less
#36Re: Why there are no children and we should think less
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because children haven't yet learnt to control their rampant emotions doesn't mean that they deserve your insults. My little ones have tantrums. Considering how many things they cannot do or control, I empathize with them. Tantrums only become a means of control when combined with weak and inconsistent parenting.
Whoever said anything about insults? I'm just pointing out that, in important ways, they are quite different from adults.
I guess I just get a bit defensive since tantrums are a natural part of growing up.
:)